Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe and Rev. Deborah Duguid-May talk about Biblical and other texts that address and represent the LGBTQ community, paying special attention to how those texts have been interpreted to express heteronormativity and “traditional” gender roles.
Transcript
DDM [00:03] Hello and welcome to The Priest & The Prof. I am your host, the Rev. Deborah Duguid-May.
MET [00:09] And I’m Dr. M. Elizabeth Thorpe.
DDM [00:11] This podcast is a product of Trinity Episcopal Church in Greece, New York. I’m an Episcopal priest of 26 years, and Elizabeth has been a rhetoric professor since 2010. And so join us as we explore the intersections of faith, community, politics, philosophy, and action.
DDM [00:42] Welcome. In this episode, we are following on from our episode on the clobber texts used against women and focusing on the passages that have been used against the LGBTIQI community to oppress and exclude people whose sexual orientation or gender identity is not heterosexual. Now, to be honest, this topic, as with many of the topics Elizabeth and I focus on, is personal. I myself am lesbian, married to my wife Melanie, but this is one of the reasons I’m really grateful, and this may sound a little strange, but that I was not raised in the church as a young person. You know, when I came out, I struggled with issues like, would my parents still love me?
DDM [01:30] I could not be open about it because I was a priest in a parish. And my bishop, although he knew I was gay, functioned under that old model of don’t ask, don’t tell. So although I wished to share with my parish, and I’m sure they would have been absolutely fine with it because of the love and the relationships that we had, I was told that if I did share with them, I would have to resign. So it was very difficult being gay and especially not being able to be open about it because there’s a way in which there is a dishonesty then, you know, it doesn’t feel like our relationships are now going forward rooted in honesty and trust.
DDM [02:08] But what I didn’t have to struggle with interiorly was spirituality and theology. Because I was not raised with any theology in the sense that I didn’t grow up going to church. And so I didn’t encounter the homophobia that is sometimes taught using Scriptures. And then by the time I went to seminary and studied theology, I had all these theological tools at my disposal and had enough to know that the homophobic interpretations of Scripture was simply inaccurate and poor theology.
DDM [02:43] So from a faith and theological lens, my sexuality was never a problem for me. And the gift of that was that I don’t really grapple with experiences of shame, doubt, self-loathing, or any of those negative emotions that those who have to overcome homophobic teachings in their formative years do. And so for those that have to unlearn this awful teaching, I think it is very hard and destructive. And we know it can very often even lead to literal death.
DDM [03:17] So I think that this is a crucial subject because as a person who loves our faith, I think we each have to recognize the ways in which our religion has been used destructively in the past, and then to take responsibility in undoing that damage by educating ourselves in good life-giving theology, but then also sharing and educating others whenever the subject comes up. Because if it is our faith, we share the responsibility for its misuse and its harm. So what I thought today, if you’re good with this Liz, is we could look at some of the texts that have been so misused and weaponized against the queer community.
DDM [04:00] So, for those who go back to the creation of Adam and Eve, I think you can listen to previous podcasts that Elizabeth and I have done on the creation story, and how that original creation of the Adamah is both fully male and female, and only later, after the division, does male and female emerge. But the next passage that’s used is Genesis 19, which is that famous story of Sodom and Gomorrah. In the traditional interpretations, and when I say traditional, I’m really putting those in air quotes, because as we’ll see later on, this really hasn’t been always the traditional teaching.
DDM [04:41] But in many of the interpretations that perhaps people might have heard, this is seen to be the passage condemning homosexuality, because the men of Sodom want to, and the word used is know, And in biblical knowledge, know is very often a euphemism for having sex with, like Adam knew Eve. So these men of Sodom want to know or have sex with these male visitors who we are told are angels. And this is actually where we get the word Sodomite from, from Sodom and Gomorrah.
DDM [05:16] But even a very quick cursory read of this passage really shows the flaws in this interpretation. You know, to protect the male guests, and we need to remember that in that Middle Eastern culture, protecting guests and providing Sanctuary for strangers amongst us was one of the most critical values for this culture. There was almost nothing more important than it, which is why treating the stranger or the immigrant in our midst was such a high Middle Eastern value and biblical value. But in order to protect these male angelic guests, the person whose home it is ends up throwing out their young virgin daughters to the men to rape, which they do.
DDM [06:04] Which shows us clearly that the men of Sodom were not interested in whether the victims were male or female, and I use the word victims, because this passage is about men using sex as a form of violence to rape and defile guests in order to humiliate the hosts and the strangers staying with them. And so the sin here is not being a safe space for strangers and using sex as a form of violence and rape. Now in case one missed that in the passage and in the reading of the passage, the prophet Ezekiel in chapter 16 verse 49 reminds the Israelites of this primary sin by saying, This was the sin of your sister Sodom.
DDM [06:51] She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed, and unconcerned. They did not help the poor and the needy. And then Jesus in the New Testament again restates this, reminding the crowds that when we do not welcome those sent by God, like the angels in this text, like the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, we will fall under God’s judgment. And so, this is really about not seeing God coming to us in the stranger, and actually has nothing to do with homosexuality, and certainly not with consensual same-sex love.
DDM [07:28] The next passage that is often used as a clobber text is Leviticus 18 and 20, when we’re told that a man shall not lie with a man. Now, again, some interpretations see this as a ban on male homosexual behavior. However, as with our podcast on gender previously, where we looked at the purity laws, these laws are part of the holiness code for ancient Israelites. And in the same section where we’re told a man shall not lie with a man, we are also told that we shall not eat shellfish, that we cannot wear mixed fabrics.
DDM [08:07] The word abomination, to’evah in Hebrew, actually refers to ritual uncleanness. It’s not about issues of morality. So just as we would not say one is immoral by wearing polyester fabric, In the same way, we cannot use this prescription of a man shall not lie with a man as a moral code. We can’t single out one of the ritual purity laws and suddenly say, well, now this one is about morality.
DDM [08:37] All of these laws were about ritual purity and cultural separation from other cultures around them. And so again, this passage really can’t be used to condemn homosexuality or modern day queer relationships. The next passage is in Romans 1, verse 26, where Paul calls out men committing indecent acts with other men. And again, this has been sometimes used to condemn male homosexuality.
DDM [09:08] But it’s interesting, and I think this is what people just forget, that this passage of Paul’s is part of an argument he’s building in Romans chapter 1 and 2 not to condemn others, but to highlight the universality that we all have sinned and are all in need of grace. And so ironically, it’s actually a passage about grace. But the question is, what specifically is Paul condemning here when he says indecent acts?
DDM [09:37] And most theologians would agree that this is actually what would be called temple prostitution or pedophilia. Now, why do we say that? Because in 1 Corinthians 6, 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1, verse 10, Paul speaks about men who have sex with men will not inherit the kingdom. The two words used here are the Greek words Malakoi and Arsenokoitai.
DDM [10:04] Malakoi meaning soft, delicate, effeminate. This was often a term used to refer to boys who were pre-pubescent, so had not yet become men. Arsenokoitai refers to those who have sex with men. And so what Paul seems to be speaking here is really of pedophilia, which is what would have been practiced often in the temple prostitution.
DDM [10:26] It’s adult men sleeping with young boys, culturally or in a ritual temple context. And again, pedophilia can in no way be equated with consensual adult sex.
MET [10:40] So that is a lot of textual information. I do not have the scriptural and theological background to go through all of the text in the way you do. However, I can take us on a little professorial journey that is very different, but maybe to your amusement. I’m going to tell you about something that happens in academia that you might not be familiar with.
MET [11:12] In academia, there’s something called Queer Theory. This is one of those things that everybody’s uncle or dad or whoever grumbles or throws a fit about because it is so useless and just a bunch of academic mumbo jumbo. And who is ever going to need that anyway? But let me tell you something.
MET [11:32] All those things that some grouchy old guy told you you are never going to need are exactly the things that we are missing right now. Look around you. People can’t tell fact from opinion, don’t know how to understand what they are reading or seeing, can’t tell if a source is legitimate or not, have no idea how to judge evidence, can’t assess or put together a good argument to save their lives, are totally taken in by any charlatan with a mic or a meme, and have no background knowledge with which to contextualize what they are seeing.
MET [12:07] So those intro level comp, lit, and media studies classes seem a bit more crucial now, don’t they? Now, I could very easily go on a rant about how there has been a concerted effort over the last 50 years to devalue the very disciplines that make you a well-informed and thoughtful citizen, because those in power specifically do not want well-informed and thoughtful citizens. But I’m sure you will hear that some other time, probably again and again. But suffice to say, Queer theory is one of those things from one of those useless classes everybody tells you not to take, like a women’s studies class or a gender studies class, something that obviously has no impact on your life because you clearly have no gender and will
MET [13:01] never come into contact with any women. Queer theory is kind of what it says. It is the process of reading things through a queer lens. It is understanding the world through queer eyes.
MET [13:16] Now you might say, well, that doesn’t make sense. How is that different? That tells me you are 100% straight and have never known anyone who trusts you enough to be honest with you about their sexuality. Seeing the world as a queer person is like seeing the world as a black person or as a woman.
MET [13:34] Your identity affects how you read things. So let me give you an example. Over the summer, My kid and I read a book together. We read Frankenstein.
MET [13:47] It’s one of my favorite books ever, and I was very excited to share it with them.
DDM [13:51] Oh my gosh. And your child and I watched that movie and I was horrified.
MET [13:57] Yes. I love Frankenstein. It’s my understanding the movie takes a few liberties. We were not two chapters into a discussion of this book when my kid kind of laughed and said, Well, this definitely isn’t gay.
MET [14:13] And I laughed, and I asked them to explain, and they did. The first chapter of Frankenstein is a guy going on and on about how handsome Victor is, and he is just so attached to him. And even though he doesn’t know Victor all that well, and how this guy is just desperate for Victor to be okay. Listener, it isn’t subtle at all.
MET [14:35] It is real queer. And later in the book, Victor Frankenstein gives similar soliloquies about his friend, Clerval. My kid also laughed and commented that Victor was definitely not in love with Clerval. And there was no reason to think this was about a bunch of gay dudes running around in the woods and mountains trying to do science.
MET [15:00] And we laughed. But actually, my kid made some really brilliant insights. When we talked about Frankenstein, we – and if you’ve read the book, you know what I’m talking about – we of course talked about Victor as wanting to be God and Victor as wanting to be a mother and all those kind of creation stories, right? He was a creator either way.
MET [15:22] But we talked about how thinking of him in these different archetypal ways makes for a different kind of story. And my kid then said, what about Clerval? And I didn’t know what they meant, but they explained that they were pretty sure Victor’s sexuality was expansive, to say the least, and that Victor was in love with Clerval. So my kid saw this as a queer fantasy.
MET [15:48] Victor wanted to be with Clerval, so the monster was his creation to fulfill that fantasy. This was his child to complete his family with his love. He wanted to be with Clerval, and this was the completion of his gay romance. Listener, I was blown away.
MET [16:03] My 15-year-old queered Frankenstein. And of course, we had a whole conversation about what that meant for Victor’s fiance, Elizabeth, and some of the other characters. And it was a really lively and fascinating conversation. But that’s precisely what Queer Theory is.
MET [16:21] It’s when you understand a thing through a queer lens. Now, you ask yourself, how would I understand this if it were, you know, just a little bit gay? We’re not asking you to queer the Bible, but we are asking you to consider that what you know of the Bible is wildly heteronormative and maybe doesn’t need to be that way. Gender roles, heteronormative ones specifically, are super important to maintaining control.
MET [16:55] And I mean that in every sense. Fascists are really into gender roles because it maintains quote unquote order and allows mechanisms of control to remain intact. By keeping all scripture, all interpretations, all translations understood through the same lens, through the same framework, the same people are always in charge. I think about second wave feminists who posited that the personal is political.
MET [17:22] And that is true in about a thousand different ways. Sexuality and gender, which are about as personal as you can get, are completely political. And I say that because political forces try to control them. And they try to control them because sexuality and gender roles that stray outside of strict boundaries cannot be easily controlled.
MET [17:44] And if I haven’t made this clear enough, being gay, gender expansive, transgender, or even just questioning gender roles is a challenge to authoritarianism.
DDM [17:54] Which is what we’re seeing so clearly in our culture today.
MET [17:56] Yes. Yeah. This is writ large for us right now. So I guess the next time anyone says something and you are learning that something is maybe not as pointless as you’ve been told, you can tell them you are fueling the resistance.
MET [18:14] To bring all of this together, Deborah has shown us how the Bible has been interpreted in a particularly heteronormative way. There were interpretations chosen to maintain power in certain hands. That’s what gender roles do. They maintain power.
MET [18:32] When we do things like queer Frankenstein or learn about actual translations, we aren’t just navel-gazing. We’re resisting.
DDM [18:44] Absolutely. And it’s so interesting that the pre-Christian Roman Empire, we know, was very open to queer relationships. And in fact, it’s interesting that the word homosexual was used to replace in the Bible words like temple prostitute, only beginning in about 1946.
DDM [19:04] Did you know that, Elizabeth?
MET [19:06] I actually did know. It’s one of those random things I did in fact know.
DDM [19:10] So it’s really, if you think about it, it’s a fairly recent movement of writing homosexuality into the Bible instead of using words like pedophilia or temple prostitute. Many older translations would use terms like young boys or boy molesters, clearly referring to pedophilia. In fact, in German translations, the word homosexuality only gets written into the Bible in 1983. I did not know that.
DDM [19:42] I mean, that’s so recently. And in fact, it later came out that this German translation where they wrote the word in homosexuality was funded by Biblica, an American company. So this is a very recent, we may say, cultural move from the USA promoting an anti-gay agenda. So I think people are right when they speak about the gay agenda, but it’s actually an anti-gay agenda that really has emerged in these last sort of 50, 60 years.
DDM [20:12] It’s incredible to me that 2,000 years of history around translation are being cast aside in favor of this quote-unquote traditional interpretation that ends up actually being a very new and well-funded cultural anti-gay movement from the USA. But I think knowing our own biblical tradition is critical and resisting these well-funded cultural movements to co-opt our tradition to serve male power and control really is essential for people of faith. And too many clergy have simply accepted these recent shifts without doing their own diligence and research on these issues. I think many clergy simply regurgitate what they’ve been taught.
DDM [21:00] But that really is no excuse. And anytime scripture is being used to strip people of human rights, warning bells should ring and we should be saying, hold on, is this really who God is? Is this really what was taught? Because that cannot be a God of life, but it’s a God of death.
DDM [21:20] But what is also interesting is the number of affirming passages of same gender relationships that our scripture actually affirms and records. In 1 Samuel 18 verse 20, David and Jonathan’s relationship is described. We’re told that their deep love was extraordinary. Scripture says Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself.
DDM [21:48] And David later says of their relationship, your love for me was wonderful, more wonderful than that of woman. That’s in 2 Samuel 1 26. This was a covenanted relationship when we read the text with very deep same-sex love. The book of Ruth and Naomi tell us of the deep love and commitment between these two women.
DDM [22:11] In fact, Ruth’s vow to Naomi is very often quoted in our liturgies for weddings. Where you go, I will go. Their relationship, while not explicitly romantic, shows deep same-sex devotion, love and commitment. And some have seen in this passage of Ruth and Naomi a model of chosen family and queer relationships.
DDM [22:37] In all these passages, however, we’ve got to remember that romantic love was very seldom the basis for any marriage or any covenanted relationship. And so we can’t transfer our ideas of marriage and romance onto marriage relationships from centuries ago. In fact, one could argue that romantic relationship is not even the basis for marriage, biblically, and is, in fact, far more of a reflection, I think, of post-19th century Western culture. I think that’s fair.
DDM [23:11] Yeah. In the New Testament, the story of Jesus and the centurion’s servant is very interesting. The Greek word pais, used for the centurion’s servant, can mean servant, it can also mean boy, or it can mean male partner. It seems, therefore, that Jesus healed not a servant as we think of, but a beloved male partner of this Roman centurion, which would not have been unnormal for a male Roman soldier to have a male partner.
DDM [23:42] We know homosexuality in the military is age-old. But what is interesting is that Jesus does not condemn their relationship, but instead praises the faith of the centurion soldier. And so given how some of Paul’s writings have been used and mistranslated to support homophobia, it’s interesting that Paul’s vision of a new humanity in Jesus transcends always gender, social and ethnic boundaries. And so Paul in Galatians 3 verse 28 speaks of a new community in Christ, defined no longer by maleness or femaleness, cultural or racial identity, even class identity.
DDM [24:25] but is for him a community that goes beyond these categories, including the binary male and female divide. Now, let’s be honest, this is radical even by today’s standards. And then in the story of Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts chapter 8, Philip we’re told meets a Ethiopian eunuch who’s reading Isaiah 53. Philip then explains to him how this passage is referring to Jesus and the eunuch immediately asked to be baptized and accepted into the faith.
DDM [24:57] This is, ironically, the first Gentile to be baptized, and he is welcomed, baptized, and affirmed without hesitation, despite, as a eunuch, being a sexual and gender minority in the ancient world. Again, this is another story in our scriptures of powerful inclusion for gender minorities and non-conforming people that, let’s be honest, how seldom we hear from our pulpits these days.
MET [25:28] Alright, I’m going to take us on another literary journey for a minute, if you don’t mind.
DDM [25:33] Love it.
MET [25:33] Yeah. There’s an author named Madeline Miller who has carved out a niche for herself writing retellings of Greek myths. I’m sure you can see where this is going if we’re talking about clobber texts with LGBTQ populations and Greek myths. One of her most successful and well-received novels was a book called The Song of Achilles. When I was reading this book, my family and I laughed over and over again about the whole, they were roommates reaction that some people had to it.
MET [26:10] If you don’t know, The Song of Achilles is about the romance and love affair between Achilles, the greatest of Greek warriors, and Patroclus, the exiled prince of Opus and adopted son of Peleus. Now, please note, these are two dudes. And this is their love story. It’s not a bromance.
MET [26:32] It’s not a coming-of-age friendship. This is their passionate romance and dramatic end. Now, I’m guessing that most of you have not actually read The Iliad, which is where their stories come from. Don’t feel bad.
MET [26:48] Most people haven’t. But let me tell you something. It does not take a lot of really deep textual analysis or Queer Theory reading to come to the conclusion that Achilles and Patroclus were madly in love with each other. In the Iliad, they tend to each other’s wounds, they take care of and praise each other, profess great affection for each other over and over, and Patroclus dons Achilles’ armor in a ruse which leads to Patroclus’ death
MET [27:22] thanks to Apollo’s meddling. Achilles literally wouldn’t let Patroclus be buried because he wanted him close until the ghost of Patroclus came to him in a dream and begged him to let him pass on. Achilles finally gave him a funeral. And when Achilles finally died in battle, his ashes were buried with Patroclus so they could be physically together forever.
MET [27:51] Listen, folks, I have never, never had a housemate or even best friend that ticks all those boxes. But I do have a husband. But for pretty much as long as the Iliad was taught as literature, Teachers and professors held Achilles and Patroclus up as examples of masculine virtue. These are what good male friendships look like.
MET [28:18] Y’all. This is straight washing, and we are super good at it. We have read and taught so many things through the years that were so obviously queer, so clearly about love between two men or two women, or about a person whose gender was obviously non-binary, and we have shoehorned that into post-Victorian and post-Industrial Age understandings of ethics and sexuality that ultimately make no sense.
MET [28:50] The truth is, much of the quote-unquote classic literature that anchors the Western canon is exactly the kind of thing that Moms for Liberty would ban if they read or ever understood anything. I can only apologize to the listeners my parents’ age who read things like the Canterbury Tales and were not taught that they are just one sex and fart joke after the other. I can only apologize to the folks who saw The Hustler in the 1960s with Paul Newman and George C. Scott and couldn’t figure out what was weird about it because you didn’t have the vocabulary.
MET [29:32] Friends, that is one of the gayest movies I have seen in a long, long time. And I have to feel bad for all of us Christians who are brought up believing that things in the Bible were straight and cisgendered. I learned young that David and Jonathan were paragons of manly virtue. They cared for each other so much, but were also manly men.
MET [29:57] You know, they were authorities. It is absolutely hilarious to me that these just friends or roommates or whatever they are, these dudes who are definitely not gay, like Achilles and Patroclus or Jonathan and David, are the ones we think of as ideal men. Achilles was Greece’s greatest warrior. He literally had only one weakness.
MET [30:24] One. Patroclus was also a great warrior before Apollo struck him senseless and Hector killed him. He was also completely beloved by the troops.
MET [30:35] He was a skilled warrior and popular leader. Jonathan was loyal, faithful, and humble. But he was also royal and authoritative, a kind of natural leader. He recognized greatness in others, however, and allowed them to flourish.
MET [30:52] David was a warrior and king, and we know, quite virile. Christ comes from the line of David. David leads to salvation. So these are men’s men, right?
MET [31:04] As we understand it, anyway. And yet it is really hard not to understand them as deeply in love with each other, if not physically bound. But we didn’t talk about them that way at all, really, until the last 40 to 50 years. And in many places, people still don’t hear about them that way outside of college classrooms.
MET [31:29] Okay, so the thing is, I’m not telling you anything that many of you don’t know. Nobody talked about these things when a lot of you were young. But that’s not just because times have changed. That’s because 40 years ago, we were really good at effectively erasing some people.
MET [31:50] That’s what it is. If you never talk about a thing, if you never name it, never recognize it, how much does it exist? I mean, it exists, it’s there, but how real is a thing if it is just never acknowledged? How long was the queer community just not acknowledged.
MET [32:12] And if it was acknowledged, it was hurt in some way. Honestly, if you read Greek myths, it is impossible not to see them as queer, but we erased that. We silenced it because we didn’t want queer people. We just didn’t want to give them any voice.
MET [32:33] That is why going back and looking at these biblical texts is so important. Because one of the things Jesus came to do is give voice to the voiceless. Queer people have been stripped of their voices for generations by bad scripture, by bad translations, by bad education, and by bad intentions. These are the very people Jesus would pave the way for.
DDM [33:29] For sure. And you know what I always find so interesting is that Jesus’ ministry is taking place when Roman culture is dominant. And with that, much of the sexuality that you describe, Elizabeth, and yet not once does Jesus reference it in the Gospels or condemn it, but instead, you know, holds up the faith of the Roman centurion. raises disciples that will welcome and baptize a eunuch, never once condemning same-sex relationships.
DDM [33:30] And so I think the homophobia that we have heard and encountered or suffered under actually has almost nothing to do with scripture and our faith, but everything to do with cultural homophobia that has been read and transcribed onto our texts and then taught as though it is biblical. Homophobia is a cultural heresy rooted in the hatred of another that really has no place in the gospel of Jesus or in the church.
MET [34:08] Thank you for listening to the Priest & The Prof. find us at our website, https://priestandprof.org. If you have any questions or concerns, feel free to contact us at podcast@priestandprof.org. Make sure to subscribe, and if you feel led, please leave a donation at https://priestandprof.org/donate.
MET [34:27] That will help cover the costs of this podcast and support the ministries of Trinity Episcopal Church. Thank you, and we hope you have enjoyed our time together today.
DDM [34:37] Music by Audionautix.com.
